News:

Good day, denizens of OC.net! Per our tradition, the forum will shut down for Clean Monday, beginning around 9pm Sunday evening (2/18) and ending around 9pm Monday evening (2/19). In the spirit of the coming Forgiveness Sunday, I ask you to forgive me for the sins I have committed against you. At the end of Great and Holy Week, the Forum will also shut down for Holy Friday and Holy Saturday (times TBA).

Nope, just some dead horse bones... His head was sent to the Sultan in Constantinople on a pale, though.

Many Romanian historians say that he is buried at the Comana monastery. However, according to an article in the Journal of Dracula Studies, Number 4, by C. Rezachevici (2002), the Orthodox monks at the Snagov monastery say he was buried there. In either case, it is claimed that he was RC and buried at an Orthodox monastery.

Many Romanian historians say that he is buried at the Comana monastery. However, according to an article in the Journal of Dracula Studies, Number 4, by C. Rezachevici (2002), the Orthodox monks at the Snagov monastery say he was buried there. In either case, it is claimed that he was RC and buried at an Orthodox monastery.

Comana is a monastery he himself built.

It's not unheard of for non-Orthodox monarchs/nobles to be buried in our monasteries. Queen Marie was Anglican and apparently sympathetic to the Bahá'í - she is buried at Curtea de Argeș, with our other kings and queens. Deus suos agnoscet...

Many Romanian historians say that he is buried at the Comana monastery. However, according to an article in the Journal of Dracula Studies, Number 4, by C. Rezachevici (2002), the Orthodox monks at the Snagov monastery say he was buried there. In either case, it is claimed that he was RC and buried at an Orthodox monastery.

Comana is a monastery he himself built.

It's not unheard of for non-Orthodox monarchs/nobles to be buried in our monasteries. Queen Marie was Anglican and apparently sympathetic to the Bahá'í - she is buried at Curtea de Argeș, with our other kings and queens. Deus suos agnoscet...

That's sad.

Logged

Cursed be he that doeth the work of the LORD deceitfully, and cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from blood.

My understanding (and I'm afraid that I can't find the sources at the moment so this is from memory) is that Vlad Tepes had returned to the Orthodox Church prior to his death. He certainly did convert to Roman Catholicism at one point, but it appears to have been for political advantage. Of course, being the way he was any return to Orthodoxy might just as easily have been for political gain also. He certainly had the support of his cousin Stefan cel Mare, who was undoubtedly committed to the Orthodox Church. On the other hand Stefan was so preoccupied with defending Moldavia against the Turks that I doubt he would have cared if Vlad was Roman Catholic.

James

Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

Many Romanian historians say that he is buried at the Comana monastery. However, according to an article in the Journal of Dracula Studies, Number 4, by C. Rezachevici (2002), the Orthodox monks at the Snagov monastery say he was buried there. In either case, it is claimed that he was RC and buried at an Orthodox monastery.

Comana is a monastery he himself built.

It's not unheard of for non-Orthodox monarchs/nobles to be buried in our monasteries. Queen Marie was Anglican and apparently sympathetic to the Bahá'í - she is buried at Curtea de Argeș, with our other kings and queens. Deus suos agnoscet...

That's sad.

Well, they could have thrown her remains out into the street to be eaten by dogs, but she wasn't as bad as Jezebel.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

What if the change in the Creed had been done the right way resulting in no schism. Would the Catholic Church still be in communion with the Orthodox or would a later problem still caused it?

I'm pretty sure that the Schism was inescapable; contrary to popular belief, there wasn't just one sole issue that led to the Schism--such as the Pope or the Filioque--but the result of several factors closing in. I think the biggest issue is simply that the East and West were too geographically separated due to the Balkan Peninsula being invaded, and it was only natural that they would go in different directions.

What if the change in the Creed had been done the right way resulting in no schism. Would the Catholic Church still be in communion with the Orthodox or would a later problem still caused it?

I'm pretty sure that the Schism was inescapable; contrary to popular belief, there wasn't just one sole issue that led to the Schism--such as the Pope or the Filioque--but the result of several factors closing in. I think the biggest issue is simply that the East and West were too geographically separated due to the Balkan Peninsula being invaded, and it was only natural that they would go in different directions.

Except that the Church is not supposed to 'go' in a 'direction'. She is supposed to hold fast the faith once delivered to the saints. Now, I'm not saying that the geographic separation and resulting cultural differences didn't contribute to the Schism. But I am saying that if we have a different faith now, it's because one side didn't do what it was supposed to do, and should have been able to do regardless of geography.

What if the change in the Creed had been done the right way resulting in no schism. Would the Catholic Church still be in communion with the Orthodox or would a later problem still caused it?

I'm pretty sure that the Schism was inescapable; contrary to popular belief, there wasn't just one sole issue that led to the Schism--such as the Pope or the Filioque--but the result of several factors closing in. I think the biggest issue is simply that the East and West were too geographically separated due to the Balkan Peninsula being invaded, and it was only natural that they would go in different directions.

I agree. The schism was really something that was a slow drifting apart rather than a lightning quick separation. 1054 was a convenient point in history to pin the Great Schism, but there is evidence that communion even continued after 1054 all the way to the Fall of Constantinople. And by 1054 it shows that there were already a number of disagreements on a number of points and as the years go by it just grew and grew. The growing schism meant a lack of dialogue and as the theology evolved on both sides, there was no check with the other side to make sure they were still on the same page.

Another big issue is the Reformation. Although a united Church could have prevented the Reformation. I've been thinking lately if someone who can make a comparison with Martin Luther and St. Maximos, and if Martin Luther could have had reformed the Church from within (and thus be kept orthodox in teaching) if he had the same avenues at St. Maximos had. That is, St. Maximos was able to find a Patriarch that supported his position (the Pope of Rome) so he continued the fight within the Church. Martin Luther did not have anywhere else to run to after Rome told him without question to retract his thesis. I'm not knowledgable on the matter, but it did seem that Luther wasn't having a dialogue, but rather was being told. And with no other bishop to support him, what else could he do but leave the Roman Catholic Church?

Now, post reformation, I believe the Roman Catholic Church is slowly falling into Luther's reformation. I believe Trent is as guilty as Vatican II for the mess the church is in today. Of course Trent externally displayed traditional Catholic beliefs, the mentality and approach changed significantly since then as an effort to continously respond to Protestant criticism. The RCChurch seemed to think that they need to respond to and differentiate themselves from the Protestant criticism rather than staying true to their original character. That is why we have all these Marian Dogmas and Pastor Aeternus, as a response to the Protestant criticism. This is what I think.

"Guide us to the Straight Way, the Way of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace, those whose portion is not wrath, and who go not astray." (Surah 1:6-7)

Hadîth: I asked Allah's Messenger PBUH about the statement of Allah: 1. Gharil maghdubi 'alaihim ("not [the way] of those who earned Your anger"), he replied: "They are the Communists". And 2. Walad dâllîn ("nor of those who went astray"): "The Leftists, they were the ones who went astray".

What if the change in the Creed had been done the right way resulting in no schism. Would the Catholic Church still be in communion with the Orthodox or would a later problem still caused it?

I'm pretty sure that the Schism was inescapable; contrary to popular belief, there wasn't just one sole issue that led to the Schism--such as the Pope or the Filioque--but the result of several factors closing in. I think the biggest issue is simply that the East and West were too geographically separated due to the Balkan Peninsula being invaded, and it was only natural that they would go in different directions.

I dont agree, georgians were also separated geographically, but they remained orthodox. Copts and Armenians are not really close to each other but they remained oriental orthodox.

I think Vlad Tepesh was Catholic for a while because the ruler of Hungary was, but I do not remember if he was Catholic or Orthodox by the time he kicked the bucket.

The faith of the Hungarian ruler does not prove anything, otherwise all Romanian rulers would have been catholics, but the Basarab, Mihai Viteazul and Stefan Cel Mare were Orthodox.

True - Hungary has absolutely no relevance to either Wallachia or Moldavia as neither principality was ruled by them. Vlad was voievod of Wallachia and so the religion of the Hungarian rulers signifies very little. To the best of my knowledge the overwhelming majority of Wallachian rulers were always Orthodox rather than Roman Catholic (although Radu cel Frumos converted to Islam) and the only Roman Catholic ruler of Moldavia was Latcu Voda.

James

Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.